The City Council on Tuesday defended its selection process and the decision to build the $180 million Downtown arena at the site south of the convention center.

The council took no action, but discussed an update on the Multipurpose Cultural and Performing Arts Center for about three hours.

City officials said they wanted the opportunity to clear up any misinformation regarding the relocation process for residents and business owners in the selected area in the Union Plaza district, as well as Union Pacific’s statement that it did not have discussions with city officials about possibly locating the arena at the rail yard behind the City Hall building on Campbell Street in Downtown.

The El Paso Times reported that among other cost factors, city representatives said they changed their minds about selecting the preferred rail yard site behind the City Hall building after city staff informed them that in exchange for the land, Union Pacific would likely ask the city to close streets at as many as 31 railroad crossings — potentially costing millions of dollars and severely disrupting traffic across the city.

“We want to clear up misstatements that we did not meet with them, that it was very informal — that’s not correct,” City Attorney Sylvia Borunda Firth said.

Borunda Firth said the city’s outside legal counsel, the Bracewell & Giuliani LLP firm, did the original outreach to Union Pacific. The firm was hired in September to help acquire the land the city needs for the three signature projects from the Quality of Life Bond approved by voters in 2012. The Downtown arena is the largest project under the $478 million bond.

Borunda Firth said the conversations occurred between attorneys prior to setting up a meeting.

She said that in preliminary discussions, railroad representatives told city officials that “when you come to that meeting you need to talk to us about No. 1, finishing your obligations, No. 2, giving more closures because that’s what we still want. They always wanted nine. We don’t know how many you’ll likely need to negotiate, but it will likely be nine (and) Zaragoza needs to be dealt with.”

Borunda Firth said that before the city “wasted anyone’s time at Union Pacific,” city attorneys approached city representatives both individually and during executive session discussions.

However, Union Pacific spokesman Jeff DeGraff on Tuesday reiterated that railroad officials did not have discussions with the city regarding the sale of property for the arena.

“I have confirmed with our team working in El Paso that we have not had discussions with the city regarding the sale of property for the arena. We regularly communicate with the city and their representatives on a number of items and issues in El Paso, but the conversation regarding the arena has not happened,” DeGraff said in an email. “We routinely have conversations with parties that are interested in our properties all across our network. We have an online form that allows people to express their interest so that we can begin conversations. In this instance, none of that has taken place.”

In 2013, Union Pacific gave the city the land it needed to complete the Downtown ballpark in exchange for the creation of two quiet zones that included the closure of several railroad crossings.

The agreement with Union Pacific included a quiet zone in the Five Points area in Central El Paso and another project that will stretch from the Medical Center of the Americas from the Chamizal area to the Cadwallader neighborhood in the Lower Valley. The Five Points quiet zone was completed in July. The remaining project is still underway.

DeGraff said in his initial statement to the El Paso Times in early November that Union Pacific does maintain that the city should fulfill its prior deal before embarking on any new, joint business ventures.

Deputy City Attorney Theresa Cullen told the City Council during the presentation Tuesday that she had been on conference calls with attorneys, the city manager and Union Pacific’s intergovernmental affairs coordinator, who also said the city would need to consider more street closures and complete its initial arrangement from the ballpark. The discussions took place beginning in October 2015, she said.

There were other issues that deterred the council from selecting the rail yard site, including the potential loss of an approximately $12.5 million investment it had made in two city buildings located in the rail yard site, the potential closing of the rail crossings, an environmental assessment and the remediation of the land.

City officials did not have estimates on how much the environmental assessment or land remediation would cost because the assessment was not done.

“I’m saddened that the groups we have worked with are questioning our due diligence,” said city Rep. Cortney Niland. “We gave very thoughtful consideration to the selection.”

Those who have opposed the Union Plaza area for the arena since it was announced Oct. 18 — including state lawmakers, county commissioners, historic preservation advocates, neighborhood residents and the city’s own Historic Landmark Commission — want the city to rethink the site so that buildings with historical significance don't have to be torn down and families don't have to be relocated.

City representatives mostly reinforced that they felt they had done due diligence in selecting the site and would not be choosing another area. They also agreed that the city needs to be more open about the process from now on.

City Rep. Peter Svarzbein said it’s important that the city share as much information as possible as the project unfolds.

“I don’t think any one of us feels good about having to relocate residents,” Svarzbein said. “I think we need to do a better job at informing residents.”

City Rep. Lily Limón said she was having second thoughts about having to relocate residents.

“We need to remember that people don’t trust us — so we really need to do a whole lot better,” Limón said. “I want to make sure that the people that live in this area are going to be taken care of.”

The city’s first community meeting held Monday evening to inform the affected residents and property owners of their options for relocation was all but drowned out by the sounds of protesters beating drums and chanting just outside the doors of the old Fire Station No. 11, built by Trost & Trost in 1930 on Santa Fe Street.

Jose Carlos Villalva, the city’s real estate manager who will lead the process of working to relocate those in the area and acquiring the properties, said he was upset that the community meeting was drowned out by protesters.

“People couldn’t ask the questions they wanted to ask; some felt intimidated by the protesters,” Villalva said.

He said that after the meeting ended, some residents asked him follow-up questions because they didn’t feel comfortable doing so during the meeting.

During the community meeting, Villalva tried to assure those in the arena footprint that the city will work with everyone on an individual basis to determine the relocation arrangements.

On Tuesday, Villalva said he will reach out to everyone and work with them on a case-by-case basis. He also assured the council that he and staff will be taking the utmost care throughout the process.

City Council members have asked that city officials provide regular updates from now on regarding the progress on the arena project and land acquisition so that they and the community can stay informed. Officials did not say whether an update would be given at each City Council meeting.

In other action

The City Council will meet with the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority at the end of November regarding its current findings on the investigation into a $2.9 million loss of funds for the Downtown streetcar project to an email phishing scam. The CRRMA is a political subdivision of the state that was created by the El Paso City Council in 2007 to handle major transportation projects such as the streetcar project.

The El Paso city government acts as the fiscal agent for the CRRMA, including paying vendors.

The El Paso Times first reported details of the scam Nov. 2. It involved someone posing as a vendor to obtain payment from the city. City officials held a news conference following the publication of the story, stating that further details could not be shared due to an ongoing investigation.

City Rep. Peter Svarzbein had placed an item on Tuesday’s agenda for discussion to get more information about how the scam unfolded and current policies, as well as other details, but the council discussed the item in executive session. It announced it would meet with the CRRMA without disclosing further details.

Mayor Oscar Leeser said Tuesday that the city plans to release information about the findings at a later date.